When Wikipedia started over a decade ago, it was seen as embodying the spirit of the Internet — a free online encyclopaedia that could prosper by the participation of tens of thousands of volunteers worldwide. Since then, it has evolved into an invaluable knowledge resource even if the information on it is not always accurate or complete.

So when Wikipedia, and some others, decides on a 24-hour blackout, it demands attention. Wikipedia and its countless supporters are angry at attempts by American legislators to curtail the piracy of US-made intellectual property. The way the proposed laws have been designed allows for wide interpretation, and anyone fearful of breaking them — like credit card companies or search engines — could shut down a website on their own judgment. This clearly violates basic principles on the freedom of expression. But at heart lies a bigger conflict — that of companies using their muscle power to dominate the Internet.
Can a single country’s laws affect what others can do or not do on the Internet? This has no easy answers. In India, recent attempts to curb social networking websites have shown that the online community is suspicious of anything that smacks of control. Some may find the Internet too anarchic, but as evident in recent years it is this very anarchy that promotes democratic freedoms. Wikipedia’s unique protest will not go unnoticed, mainly because millions of individuals have got used to the Internet’s freewheeling ways. Sooner rather than later, a compromise between opposing positions on this issue has to be worked out.